<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (5) TMI 2244 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467208</link>
    <description>Successful resolution applicant&#039;s refund claim for performance security and 1% upfront payment was rejected because the applicant failed to pay amounts and implement the approved resolution plan; the Letter of Intent expressly permitted release of assets only after full payment and allowed forfeiture of sums paid on default, and recorded acceptance of assets on an &quot;as is where is&quot; and &quot;no recourse&quot; basis. The adjudicatory finding that the applicant defaulted was treated as final, and the appeal against refusal to refund was dismissed, leaving the contractual forfeiture and non-refund outcome intact.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 23:34:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=889796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 2244 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467208</link>
      <description>Successful resolution applicant&#039;s refund claim for performance security and 1% upfront payment was rejected because the applicant failed to pay amounts and implement the approved resolution plan; the Letter of Intent expressly permitted release of assets only after full payment and allowed forfeiture of sums paid on default, and recorded acceptance of assets on an &quot;as is where is&quot; and &quot;no recourse&quot; basis. The adjudicatory finding that the applicant defaulted was treated as final, and the appeal against refusal to refund was dismissed, leaving the contractual forfeiture and non-refund outcome intact.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>